RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 602 603 604 605 606 [607] 608 >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2017,11:21   

Coming from Wesley the last bashing did hurt, really good. But at least I did not expect him to address the limitations of ANN's such as being unable to account for brainwaves and the 58% signal ratio found in the navigation system of real brains.

Instead of my wasting time at this alpha-male pissing contest I went street dancing again with the Go-Go's then moved on by (lips sealed) quietly getting back to work on my MI model. And now that I have the day off from work I will be planning then conducting my next experiment. Goal is to better isolate the simple rules that are required for populations of brainwave producing cells to most efficiently plan out good guesses for how to as safely as possible get from place to place, while avoiding hidden hazards that may exist along the way.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2017,14:12   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 03 2017,08:00)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 03 2017,17:49)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 02 2017,11:59)
   
Quote
My work has likewise been towards modeling "small groups of crude virtual neurons". I focused on the motor navigation side of the system while Geoff Hinton was focusing on the sensory input side.


And what reaction has Professor Hinton given to your "model"? Has he praised it as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and robotics?

What! You haven't sent it to him? I wonder why not.

Several times in the past Gary has told of emailing someone far above himself in the cognition spectrum and having either received no response or a polite "That's nice" he reported back here that his theory was doing fine and that the person he emailed "had no problem with it."

Those people were probably worried Gary would show up on their doorstep with a fatwa.

He"s more likely to offer to share a Fat One.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2017,21:05   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 03 2017,09:49)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 02 2017,11:59)
Quote
My work has likewise been towards modeling "small groups of crude virtual neurons". I focused on the motor navigation side of the system while Geoff Hinton was focusing on the sensory input side.


And what reaction has Professor Hinton given to your "model"? Has he praised it as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and robotics?

What! You haven't sent it to him? I wonder why not.

Several times in the past Gary has told of emailing someone far above himself in the cognition spectrum and having either received no response or a polite "That's nice" he reported back here that his theory was doing fine and that the person he emailed "had no problem with it."

Back when Gary still ventured into Reddit, he pranced around with an email-reply he had received from some actual scientist. The thing was: That person was pretty directly telling him that he wasn't even asking the right question. He was just doing so in a polite way, and that's all it took for Gary to proclaim this as recognition and -no joke- peer review.
It was actually quite sad to watch when people called him out on it and laughed at him.
(Went straight back to being fun again though, when he started bragging here how well he was doing on Reddit.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2017,21:31   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 03 2017,21:05)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 03 2017,09:49)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 02 2017,11:59)
 
Quote
My work has likewise been towards modeling "small groups of crude virtual neurons". I focused on the motor navigation side of the system while Geoff Hinton was focusing on the sensory input side.


And what reaction has Professor Hinton given to your "model"? Has he praised it as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and robotics?

What! You haven't sent it to him? I wonder why not.

Several times in the past Gary has told of emailing someone far above himself in the cognition spectrum and having either received no response or a polite "That's nice" he reported back here that his theory was doing fine and that the person he emailed "had no problem with it."

Back when Gary still ventured into Reddit, he pranced around with an email-reply he had received from some actual scientist. The thing was: That person was pretty directly telling him that he wasn't even asking the right question. He was just doing so in a polite way, and that's all it took for Gary to proclaim this as recognition and -no joke- peer review.
It was actually quite sad to watch when people called him out on it and laughed at him.
(Went straight back to being fun again though, when he started bragging here how well he was doing on Reddit.)

I get enough cranks to forever keep the rumor mills busy.

Link to this discussion please.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2017,21:51   

Usually, one doesn't have to do more than recycle parts of things Gary didn't bother to read for comprehension.

Gary:

Quote

That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.


Once it was clear that Gary hadn't bothered to actually put anything like "NEURONS" in his PSC code, he suddenly went on this kick about how artificial neural systems (ANS) must be bad and inefficient compared to, as it turns out, just animating the heck out of things.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2017,07:15   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2017,21:51)
Usually, one doesn't have to do more than recycle parts of things Gary didn't bother to read for comprehension.

Gary:

     
Quote

That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.


Once it was clear that Gary hadn't bothered to actually put anything like "NEURONS" in his PSC code, he suddenly went on this kick about how artificial neural systems (ANS) must be bad and inefficient compared to, as it turns out, just animating the heck out of things.

Wesley, to be precise you must say I am modeling the behavior of basics like cortical columnar units, hexagonally connected populations of cells that are seen emerging at 6:30 into this model based video, which I just added to my new playlist right after the hexagonally arranging bubble experiment I filmed where I said one word that gets the whole playlist just right.

The Blue Brain Project
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NYKC8mq4P0&index=2&list=PLPCENRDc3DcTAW6uMMi3HNjF8Fvpn6vWx

Groove Is In The Heart is in there too, regardless of what fnxtr said above that is essentially true even though it's extremely unlikely anyone especially here in Massachusetts where that sort of action has been decriminalized (and I don't get out much anyway) would worry about that happening. I have not had a drink of alcohol in almost three decades and before that went years without any or development of prescription drug addiction. There have never been tracksite pot or whatever parties with scientists, students or teachers who have spent time working here. If they did bring a beer then I would need to start an extra strong pot of coffee, just for me to join them with what keeps me going instead these days. Their out of the blue offering to share a Fat One with me would certainly test my willpower, but that has not happened yet nor do I encourage it.

I now get a comfortable enough adrenaline high, just from the science thrill from your challenge that you yourself presented to me. Perhaps it's to let out my inner alpha-ness by butting heads with you. If true then there you go, we are living examples of "evolutionary" significance for you and others to work on was gained in the process that none the less makes such a primitive behavior worthwhile for us to continue with until we lock horns or something.

Neurological "research" has rare papers with good clues like the one I keep having to link to for modeling what's going on in the brain of at least mammals but it does not explain how to "animate" anything:

journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000403

I am not starting with Video S1 showing a live rat:  

doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000403.s014
(4.78 MB MOV)

I have to model what's inside its skull making use of waves that are in turn make it so good at navigational reasoning such as this or it will look like I enjoy torturing things. Seriously.

It's also not my fault that what works too good to be a coincidence boils down to a simple wave geometry related process. Your need to complicate things with ANN's and such even has Occam's Razor butting back by shaving more than your beard off. The remaining explanation then pertains to all levels of biology the systematics apply to.

My making it look so easy is a part of what makes this a greater challenge than what you were expecting. So be thankful Darwinian territory is still all yours to rule. I'm only concerned with the scientific turf for intelligent causes of one kind or another. Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there. The Power of science does this way work in your favor, may the force be with you.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1047
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2017,08:00   

Quote
Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there.


All I can say to that is "March of folly, over-the-cliff lemmingness."

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2017,16:41   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 04 2017,08:00)
 
Quote
Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there.


All I can say to that is "March of folly, over-the-cliff lemmingness."

Glen Davidson

From where I'm at I'm still only seeing more and more of this:

The Neverending Story Theme - Limahl
www.youtube.com/watch?v=geVYIHOat5o&index=16&list=PLPCENRDc3DcTAW6uMMi3HNjF8Fvpn6vWx

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Lethean



Posts: 150
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,03:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2017,07:15)
My making it look so easy is a part of what makes this a greater challenge than what you were expecting. So be thankful Darwinian territory is still all yours to rule. I'm only concerned with the scientific turf for intelligent causes of one kind or another. Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there. The Power of science does this way work in your favor, may the force be with you.


Yeah, Wesley, so be grateful his alpha-ness Gary is magnanimous enough to leave some science crumbs for you.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,05:06   

Quote
I'm only concerned with the scientific turf for intelligent causes of one kind or another.


Is that AstroTurf, you know, the intelligently designed by man artificial stuff? Please post a full list of what you think the "intelligent causes of one kind or another" are, Gaulin. Then we can discuss your "theory-model" in the light of these causes. Does kind here mean a biblical kind or something else, it's so difficult to tell the way you mangle language.

Quote
My making it look so easy is a part of what makes this a greater challenge than what you were expecting.


No, you spelled easy wrongly. It should read "My making it look so stupid..."

Quote
So be thankful Darwinian territory is still all yours to rule.


At last! An admission from Gaulin that his bullshit has nothing to do with evolution.



Quote
It's also not my fault that what works too good to be a coincidence boils down to a simple wave geometry related process. Your need to complicate things with ANN's and such even has Occam's Razor butting back by shaving more than your beard off. The remaining explanation then pertains to all levels of biology the systematics apply to.


I recognise the words are English but I think you have typed them in the wrong order as they make no sense at all.

Quote
Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there. The Power of science does this way work in your favor, may the force be with you.


And for the grand finale, total gibberish and a keyboard covered in spittle. One of your "best" posts yet, Gaulin!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,14:27   

Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,03:41)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2017,07:15)
My making it look so easy is a part of what makes this a greater challenge than what you were expecting. So be thankful Darwinian territory is still all yours to rule. I'm only concerned with the scientific turf for intelligent causes of one kind or another. Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there. The Power of science does this way work in your favor, may the force be with you.


Yeah, Wesley, so be grateful his alpha-ness Gary is magnanimous enough to leave some science crumbs for you.



My Popsicle should read "Gary's Cognitive Science"

But otherwise it looks OK to me.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Lethean



Posts: 150
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,17:44   

Oh?

Have you changed the name of your "theory" ?

The name of your "lab" ?

Is a new sig in the works ?

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Henry J



Posts: 4815
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,18:36   

Changed its name? Shirley not!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2017,18:46   

Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
Oh?

Have you changed the name of your "theory" ?


The theory that applies to the premise of the "theory of intelligent design" is just one of many things. There is even the cognitive science based explanation of the origin of the "scientific method":
sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

 
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
The name of your "lab" ?


The name is as always "Intelligence Design Lab" because it exists to make it possible to design virtual critters that have what is called "Intelligence". Its abbreviation might be somewhat ambiguous, but all relating to "theory of intelligent design" is dependent on that model. Otherwise there is no testable mechanism to explain the so named "intelligent cause" of living things.

 
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
Is a new sig in the works ?


My signature line still gives me the creeps too, but at least we are now on the same page in regards to what it says exactly.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Lethean



Posts: 150
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2017,17:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2017,18:46)
 
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
Oh?

Have you changed the name of your "theory" ?


The theory that applies to the premise of the "theory of intelligent design" is just one of many things. There is even the cognitive science based explanation of the origin of the "scientific method":
sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

   
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
The name of your "lab" ?


The name is as always "Intelligence Design Lab" because it exists to make it possible to design virtual critters that have what is called "Intelligence". Its abbreviation might be somewhat ambiguous, but all relating to "theory of intelligent design" is dependent on that model. Otherwise there is no testable mechanism to explain the so named "intelligent cause" of living things.

   
Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 05 2017,17:44)
Is a new sig in the works ?


My signature line still gives me the creeps too, but at least we are now on the same page in regards to what it says exactly.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2017,18:26   

Quote
Otherwise there is no testable mechanism to explain the so named "intelligent cause" of living things.


What did you say was the exact difference between an "intelligent cause of living things", and an "intelligent designer of living things"?

Because if you can't give one, your intelligent design "theory" isn't just intelligent design in name only.
Which is not be surprising, given that by your own admission, the entire premise of your junk-theory is literally based on the Discovery Institute - An organization famous for trying to get intelligent-design creationism taught in American schools.

Quote
My signature line still gives me the creeps too, but at least we are now on the same page in regards to what it says exactly.


....What are you on about? Your signature line (which is straight up copy-pasted from your "theory") gives you the creeps? So you know that it is horrendously wrong? Meaning you know that the entire foundation of your "theory" is wrong? Then why not just give this whole cringeworthy crusade for pseudoscience up and go home?

I'm assuming you must mean something else, because you have never shown that level of self reflection before, but whatever you do mean is as usual completely incomprehensible and incoherent, so your guess is as good as mine.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2017,18:47   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 06 2017,16:26)
so your guess is as good as mine.

Don't bet on it.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,07:35   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 06 2017,18:26)
What did you say was the exact difference between an "intelligent cause of living things", and an "intelligent designer of living things"?

Other than the premise stating "intelligent cause" not "intelligent designer" there is no difference, same process/entity.

Both depend on how "intelligent cause" becomes defined by scientific theory, how it works. Currently held opinions are now being tested.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,12:00   

Quote (Lethean @ Nov. 06 2017,17:33)

If I missed the point then I will need more information on what the point was supposed to be.

I'm living from experiment to experiment. At the moment I have a 12 sector (24 sectors of resolution from 2 timestep) Intelligence Design Lab that's at the expected 58.3% ratio. This seems to indicate that it's enough resolution to account for what is seen in the Blue Brain Project video where there are many place to place neurons to resolve the incoming wave direction.

The freezing up problem is most likely being caused by additional resolution alone not holding together pulsed and standing waves I earlier generated using 6 sector negation:

Code Sample

 For N = 1 To 63             'For all possible Neighbor readings. Above 63 is Attract or Repel mem.
    RAM(N) = 63 - N        'Example: binary 111111 - 001100 = 110011, bits become exact opposite.
 Next N



intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

I now need to try simplifying the code for 24 sector resolution by getting back to the wave propagation basics I started with. There is then the best of both worlds. If it works then a new wave pattern will be seen emerging, while like radio waves the old drift further off into outer space. At the moment the program clears then redraws when something changes inside the network. It's something I planned to at some point no longer need. What is going on in the program will then become more obvious.

Science is all about explaining how things works. Therefore that's what I do. And what applies to our brain level networks may also apply to cells and genetic networks that possibly think much more like us than chemistry books may make them appear. Intelligent cause is all over the place, waiting to be further explained. A premise that holds this true is in scientific reality no big deal. The problem is from expecting "God did it" answers from a scientific model/theory. Hence you should also not be expecting that from me. I'm left clueless as to what your point may be. And need to get back to work. So off I must go, missing it, Wwoooooooshhhh!!

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,13:33   

Quote
Intelligent cause is all over the place, waiting to be further explained.


It certainly is "all over the place", incoherent would be a better description though. To be "further explained" it would have to be firstly explained. Something you have signally failed to do.

   
Quote
Science is all about explaining how things works.


When are you going to start then?

   
Quote
Therefore that's what I do.


No it isn't. See how easy it is to refute your bald assertions? What you are doing is called pseudoscience just like homeopathy, astrology, ID (what you choose to call IC) and the woo that Chopra spews forth. Your catchphrase is trivial. You first have to establish "IC" before you can use it as any sort of explanation. A total failure on your part.

Let's start at the beginning, again. Why should we take you seriously when your first assertion about "molecular intelligence" is unsupported by any evidence or test-ability? So use science to explain that.

I bet you can't.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,19:25   

Quote
Other than the premise stating "intelligent cause" not "intelligent designer" there is no difference, same process/entity.


Yes, we know. It's intelligent design, by any definition.

The statement I quoted at the beginning of this post clearly states that there is no difference between an intelligent designer and an intelligent cause, they are the "same process/entity", according to you.

Now, why did you try for so long to weasel out of answering this question, which we all knew the answer to anyway?

Because here we get a perfect example of why you keep shooting yourself in the foot.
You have a "theory" of gibberish that you can not only not express coherently, no, you haven't even finished making it up all the way. There literally doesn't exist a coherent idea of this, not even in your own brain. All you have is a spiritually inspired vague idea that you want to be true, and a bunch of woowoo to defend it. But since you don't even have a clear idea of what exactly you are trying to defend, you keep making the woowoo up as you go along. Whatever seems plausible to you at any given point is what your gibberish means.

Of course, this inevitably leads to you contradicting yourself at every corner, because there is no consistency in made up stuff you haven't even clearly defined for yourself.

Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?

Quote
stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!

And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:

Quote
Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/


He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!

Quote
Never judge a book by its cover. Likewise: Never judge a theory by its title.


Ha, and whoever wrote this clearly doesn't know that "there is no difference [between intelligent designer or intelligent cause], same process/entity."

So, who were all those guys who contradicted you? Why, it was all you, Gary! In fact, you were the only one who contradicted yourself on this matter, the rest of was saying that this was clearly intelligent design from the start. But good to know that we are on the same page on that one, at least until you flip-flop next time, and decide your "theory" shouldn't be about an intelligent designer after all, then the two will suddenly be completely different things again.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,20:28   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 07 2017,19:25)
Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?

 
Quote
stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!

And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:

 
Quote
Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/


He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!

What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously. It's otherwise a question that only a place like the ask a shitty philosopher forum would (for entertainment value) want to try answering.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1508
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,21:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2017,20:28)
Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Nov. 07 2017,19:25)
Let's look at some quotes of people contradicting you, shall we?

   
Quote
stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


Oh, whoops, that is awkward, if the two are the same entity, how is it moving the goalposts to use the other term? Whoever wrote that quote must strongly disagree with you!

And here's another guy who seems to disagree completely with you:

   
Quote
Intelligent Designer related questions such as those are best answered at this forum:
www.reddit.com/r/askashittyphilosopher/


He even implies that any mentions of an intelligent designer are a sign of shitty philosophy!

What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously. It's otherwise a question that only a place like the ask a shitty philosopher forum would (for entertainment value) want to try answering.

How dare anyone expect Gary to explain the meaning of the thing Gary named his own "theory" after!  So inconsiderate.

The next thing you know, people will demand evidence from Gary.  You don't have to take that kind of abuse, Gary!

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 4815
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,22:01   

Yeah, thou shalt not try to confuse thy neighbor with facts!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2017,22:18   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 07 2017,21:02)
How dare anyone expect Gary to explain the meaning of the thing Gary named his own "theory" after!  So inconsiderate.

The next thing you know, people will demand evidence from Gary.  You don't have to take that kind of abuse, Gary!

This is what the Gary's Cognitive Theory popsicle has in it for main ingredients. The further theory it way at the end mentions but does not explain is from before the Discovery Institute even existed. What I already had became controversial on account of them, and you can't blame me for making the best of it by this way giving the DI what they asked for:

 
Quote
THEORY OF OPERATION – HOW IT WORKS
The Intelligence Design Lab-5 is a cognitive model with behavior that is guided by a navigational network system that maps out an internal representation of its external environment (an internal world model) using a 2D array where signal flow (magnitude and direction) vectors point out the shortest path to where they want to go. This is a vital part of our visual imagination. During human development it is common and expected to cause children to stretch out their arms and say “I can fly!” as they run around while visualizing themselves navigating the sky.
Physical properties at each place in the external environment are mapped into a network according to whether they are safely navigable, an unnavigable boundary or border at a barrier, or place attracting it (in this case where the food is).
An attracting location in the network provides an always signaling (action potential) signal that propagates outward in all directions and around barrier locations that do not signal at all (the signal stops there just as the critter would by bashing into a barrier). In math these directional activity patterns are shown using a vector map. The ID Lab provides this in the onscreen Navigation Network form that can show the signal direction through each place in the network.
Its confidence in motor actions (forward/reverse and left/right) depend on the magnitude and direction it is actually traveling matching the magnitude and direction of the signal flow at the corresponding place it is currently at. Where there is more than one pathway the shortest path dominates, will be the first to propagate to that point and be favored. Where there are two or more paths of equal distance it may become indecisive but will soon favor one path over the others.
To test its place avoidance behavior a hidden moving shock zone slowly rotates counterclockwise, while the critter chases food in a clockwise direction heading straight towards the hazard. Although the test is demanding the confidence system of this intelligence strives for perfection, as does a human athlete. The relatively high confidence levels shown in the included line chart indicates that the virtual critter is having fun. In the research paper “Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames” (see notes) that the arena and some of the navigational network is based upon it was found that; some live rats preferred to chase after the treats even though they are not hungry enough to need to eat, while others preferred to remain in the shock free center zone. Even a live animal has to first be willing to accept the challenge. For the virtual critter several If-Then statements that compare actual travel magnitude and direction to that of the internal representation is enough to make it want nothing else but to chase the food around its arena.
Intentionally getting out of the way of the approaching invisible shock zone requires the ability to (from past experience) predict future environmental events. This was added by alternating between current angular time (by default room angle is from 0 to 15) and the next angular time frame ahead. The places that will soon become a shock hazard periodically become a place to avoid. This sequential on and off signaling causes a (over time) temporal decision to be made. The same works for swarming bees. Scouts that find a possible new place to build a hive are one at a time allowed to dance out the location for other bees to inspect. This way each option is first considered, before making a final decision. Otherwise all the bees would either swarm to the first site found or to different ones (instead of staying together).
The virtual critter cannot (like a swarm of bees) divide itself then go separate ways, therefore appropriate actions are taken simply by repeatedly presenting (in any sequence) what must be considered.
Exactly what it will choose to do at any given time is as hard to predict as it is in real animals. The only way to know for sure is read their mind, which (by adding RAM monitoring code) is possible to do to the ID Lab critter. But it's still not at all like the easy predictable behavior of zombie-like “programmed” actions from an algorithm that uses math to make it go in a given direction in response to an approaching hazard instead of simply showing the options to consider then leaving the decision up to it to figure out, on its own.
After avoiding being surrounded by the approaching zone it must have the common sense to go around to behind then wait for the food to be in the clear, while knowing where the food is located even when it's surrounded by places to avoid that can (where signal timing is way off) block its signal activity. Where the signals from attract and avoid locations combine: the wanting to go both towards and away from the food results in it becoming nervously anxious, skittish, as are real animals with such a dilemma.
The signal timing that was found to work best closely follows Hebbian Theory. Neighboring cells that fire together, wire together a network with activity patterns that recreate the physical properties of what is in the external environment. It can also be conceptualized as a conservation of energy strategy where at each place in the network an incoming charge is transferred to uncharged neighbors on the opposite side, outgoing direction. The signal energy is moved from place to place, not destroyed then regenerated all over again.
To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them.
This navigation system demonstrates how simple it is to organize a network that provides navigational intuition like we have. It helps explain why animals (insects are also animals) seem born with a navigational ability that is there from the start. The origin of this behavior in living animals does not have to be a learned instinct that slowly developed over many millions of years of time by blundering animals passing on slightly less blundering behavioral traits to offspring. It's possible for these neural navigational networks to have existed when multicellular animals first developed, which set off the Cambrian Explosion. The origin of these inherent navigational behaviors may best explained by the activity patterns in these relatively simple cellular networks.
The origin of our brain may in part be from subcellular networks that work much the same way in unicellular protozoans (single celled animals) such as paramecia, which have eye spots, antennae and other features once thought to only exist in multicellular animals. Testing such a hypothesis using this computer model requires additional theory, which may have a controversial title but going further into biology this way meets all of the requirements of the premise for an already proposed theory. In a case like this regardless of being controversial science requires developing already existing theory. Therefore see the TheoryOfID.pdf in Notes folder, for a testable operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled. It is predicted to this way be possible to demonstrate a never before programmed intelligent causation event, which is still a further research goal and challenge for all to enjoy.

intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

I do not need to argue over things like what is or is not "IC", I only need to (from a cognitive science perspective) explain why such things none the less happen. After that it's like agreeing with Behe and others, even though the mechanism is not left up to the imagination as they did. Power of science works in mysterious ways.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2017,04:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2017,22:18)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 07 2017,21:02)
How dare anyone expect Gary to explain the meaning of the thing Gary named his own "theory" after!  So inconsiderate.

The next thing you know, people will demand evidence from Gary.  You don't have to take that kind of abuse, Gary!

This is what the Gary's Cognitive Theory popsicle has in it for main ingredients. The further theory it way at the end mentions but does not explain is from before the Discovery Institute even existed. What I already had became controversial on account of them, and you can't blame me for making the best of it by this way giving the DI what they asked for:

       
Quote
THEORY OF OPERATION – HOW IT WORKS
The Intelligence Design Lab-5 is a cognitive model with behavior that is guided by a navigational network system that maps out an internal representation of its external environment (an internal world model) using a 2D array where signal flow (magnitude and direction) vectors point out the shortest path to where they want to go. This is a vital part of our visual imagination. During human development it is common and expected to cause children to stretch out their arms and say “I can fly!” as they run around while visualizing themselves navigating the sky.
Physical properties at each place in the external environment are mapped into a network according to whether they are safely navigable, an unnavigable boundary or border at a barrier, or place attracting it (in this case where the food is).
An attracting location in the network provides an always signaling (action potential) signal that propagates outward in all directions and around barrier locations that do not signal at all (the signal stops there just as the critter would by bashing into a barrier). In math these directional activity patterns are shown using a vector map. The ID Lab provides this in the onscreen Navigation Network form that can show the signal direction through each place in the network.
Its confidence in motor actions (forward/reverse and left/right) depend on the magnitude and direction it is actually traveling matching the magnitude and direction of the signal flow at the corresponding place it is currently at. Where there is more than one pathway the shortest path dominates, will be the first to propagate to that point and be favored. Where there are two or more paths of equal distance it may become indecisive but will soon favor one path over the others.
To test its place avoidance behavior a hidden moving shock zone slowly rotates counterclockwise, while the critter chases food in a clockwise direction heading straight towards the hazard. Although the test is demanding the confidence system of this intelligence strives for perfection, as does a human athlete. The relatively high confidence levels shown in the included line chart indicates that the virtual critter is having fun. In the research paper “Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames” (see notes) that the arena and some of the navigational network is based upon it was found that; some live rats preferred to chase after the treats even though they are not hungry enough to need to eat, while others preferred to remain in the shock free center zone. Even a live animal has to first be willing to accept the challenge. For the virtual critter several If-Then statements that compare actual travel magnitude and direction to that of the internal representation is enough to make it want nothing else but to chase the food around its arena.
Intentionally getting out of the way of the approaching invisible shock zone requires the ability to (from past experience) predict future environmental events. This was added by alternating between current angular time (by default room angle is from 0 to 15) and the next angular time frame ahead. The places that will soon become a shock hazard periodically become a place to avoid. This sequential on and off signaling causes a (over time) temporal decision to be made. The same works for swarming bees. Scouts that find a possible new place to build a hive are one at a time allowed to dance out the location for other bees to inspect. This way each option is first considered, before making a final decision. Otherwise all the bees would either swarm to the first site found or to different ones (instead of staying together).
The virtual critter cannot (like a swarm of bees) divide itself then go separate ways, therefore appropriate actions are taken simply by repeatedly presenting (in any sequence) what must be considered.
Exactly what it will choose to do at any given time is as hard to predict as it is in real animals. The only way to know for sure is read their mind, which (by adding RAM monitoring code) is possible to do to the ID Lab critter. But it's still not at all like the easy predictable behavior of zombie-like “programmed” actions from an algorithm that uses math to make it go in a given direction in response to an approaching hazard instead of simply showing the options to consider then leaving the decision up to it to figure out, on its own.
After avoiding being surrounded by the approaching zone it must have the common sense to go around to behind then wait for the food to be in the clear, while knowing where the food is located even when it's surrounded by places to avoid that can (where signal timing is way off) block its signal activity. Where the signals from attract and avoid locations combine: the wanting to go both towards and away from the food results in it becoming nervously anxious, skittish, as are real animals with such a dilemma.
The signal timing that was found to work best closely follows Hebbian Theory. Neighboring cells that fire together, wire together a network with activity patterns that recreate the physical properties of what is in the external environment. It can also be conceptualized as a conservation of energy strategy where at each place in the network an incoming charge is transferred to uncharged neighbors on the opposite side, outgoing direction. The signal energy is moved from place to place, not destroyed then regenerated all over again.
To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them.
This navigation system demonstrates how simple it is to organize a network that provides navigational intuition like we have. It helps explain why animals (insects are also animals) seem born with a navigational ability that is there from the start. The origin of this behavior in living animals does not have to be a learned instinct that slowly developed over many millions of years of time by blundering animals passing on slightly less blundering behavioral traits to offspring. It's possible for these neural navigational networks to have existed when multicellular animals first developed, which set off the Cambrian Explosion. The origin of these inherent navigational behaviors may best explained by the activity patterns in these relatively simple cellular networks.
The origin of our brain may in part be from subcellular networks that work much the same way in unicellular protozoans (single celled animals) such as paramecia, which have eye spots, antennae and other features once thought to only exist in multicellular animals. Testing such a hypothesis using this computer model requires additional theory, which may have a controversial title but going further into biology this way meets all of the requirements of the premise for an already proposed theory. In a case like this regardless of being controversial science requires developing already existing theory. Therefore see the TheoryOfID.pdf in Notes folder, for a testable operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled. It is predicted to this way be possible to demonstrate a never before programmed intelligent causation event, which is still a further research goal and challenge for all to enjoy.

intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/

I do not need to argue over things like what is or is not "IC", I only need to (from a cognitive science perspective) explain why such things none the less happen. After that it's like agreeing with Behe and others, even though the mechanism is not left up to the imagination as they did. Power of science works in mysterious ways.

Good lord, that's an unreadable mess.

As far as I can remember (but it's been a long time since I worried about them, so feel free to correct me), none of the Paramecium species possess eyespots (although they do have some sensitivity to light) and none of them have tentacles.  Organisms like chrysophyta and euglenids have eyespots (stigma), but these have been known since very nearly the earliest days of looking at them with microscopes, so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say 'thought to exist only in multicellular animals'.  

Euglenids photosynthesize when conditions permit, so they do better at higher light levels and thus benefit from finding brighter light.  Euglenid eyespots (stigma) have nothing to do with thought or intelligence and they neither "see" nor even perceive light: the eyespot, which consists of carotenoid pigment granules that differentially absorb and filter light, is present at the base of the flagellum.  This passes restricted wavelengths of light on to the paraflagellar body, which responds to those wavelengths by (simplifying here) creating some proteins that motivate the flagellum.  As the Euglena rotates, the eyespot blocks the light, causing the Euglena to move toward the light.  This is strictly non-intelligent biochemical reactions.


   
Quote
What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

Your point is opaque.  Drawin's theory does not take natural selection as a premise.  No one has proposed a "Natural Selctor", and no one claims that Darwin's theory involves any "godlike entity".  Would you care to try to make your point again?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2017,05:24   

To take one paragraph at random;

 
Quote
To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them.


Total and utter gibberish. A random word generator would make more sense.

 
Quote
What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously.


Who in biological science has proposed an evolutionary "Selector"? Do you not see the major flaw with this quote, Gaulin? I'll give you a clue, read your signature about it being random.

If you still don't get it a "natural selector" cannot be random. Either change your sig. or use the "proper phrases".

 
Quote
The Intelligence Design Lab-5


Should that be "The Intelligence Cause Lab-5"?

 
Quote
The further theory it way at the end mentions but does not explain is from before the Discovery Institute even existed.


I'm sure that there must be some disjointed sense in this sentence but I can't find it. Perhaps Gaulin would make the ideal lab-rat for experiments on cognition, then he would be useful to science.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2017,06:40   

I had no problem making 24 sector places that hold the waveshape. The nicely weird thing about it though is changing the attractor location too fast results in the formation of a representative blob or swirl that can on its own stay going but usually settles back on its own, sometimes with places where feeders were earlier located then showing up in the wave pattern. I'm going to leave that in, see what happens.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2017,07:45   

Gary:

Quote

That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.


Isn't it just amazing how Gary was "#WINNING" then because his code had "NEURONS", and now is "#WINNING" yet again because his code does *not* have those nasty, inefficient "NEURONS"?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
fnxtr



Posts: 2602
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2017,13:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2017,05:45)
Gary:

 
Quote

That is part of the COGNITIVE MODEL that has NEURONS that they can make virtual ROBOTS with, like I do.


Isn't it just amazing how Gary was "#WINNING" then because his code had "NEURONS", and now is "#WINNING" yet again because his code does *not* have those nasty, inefficient "NEURONS"?

The Black Knight always triumphs.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
  18219 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 602 603 604 605 606 [607] 608 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]